Sustainability

#Sustainability | 来源: 网络整理| 查看: 265

Next Article in Journal A Comparative Analysis of Separate and Joint Environmental Rights Trading Markets in China Previous Article in Journal Exploring Gender Differences in the Role of Trait Preferences among Stakeholders in the Rice Value Chain in Ghana Journals Active Journals Find a Journal Proceedings Series Topics Information For Authors For Reviewers For Editors For Librarians For Publishers For Societies For Conference Organizers Open Access Policy Institutional Open Access Program Special Issues Guidelines Editorial Process Research and Publication Ethics Article Processing Charges Awards Testimonials Author Services Initiatives Sciforum MDPI Books Preprints.org Scilit SciProfiles Encyclopedia JAMS Proceedings Series About Overview Contact Careers News Blog Sign In / Sign Up Notice clear Notice

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

Continue Cancel clear

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess.

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Journals Active Journals Find a Journal Proceedings Series Topics Information For Authors For Reviewers For Editors For Librarians For Publishers For Societies For Conference Organizers Open Access Policy Institutional Open Access Program Special Issues Guidelines Editorial Process Research and Publication Ethics Article Processing Charges Awards Testimonials Author Services Initiatives Sciforum MDPI Books Preprints.org Scilit SciProfiles Encyclopedia JAMS Proceedings Series About Overview Contact Careers News Blog Sign In / Sign Up Submit Journals Sustainability Volume 15 Issue 7 10.3390/su15076034

Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Edit a Special Issue ► ▼ Article Menu Article Menu Subscribe SciFeed Recommended Articles Related Info Link Google Scholar More by Authors Links on DOAJ Hong, B. Ren, P. Huang, R. Xiao, J. Yuan, Q. on Google Scholar Hong, B. Ren, P. Huang, R. Xiao, J. Yuan, Q. on PubMed Hong, B. Ren, P. Huang, R. Xiao, J. Yuan, Q. /ajax/scifeed/subscribe Article Views Citations - Table of Contents Altmetric share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up ... Endorse textsms ... Comment Need Help? Support

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Get Support Feedback

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Give Feedback Information

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Get Information clear JSmol Viewer clear first_page settings Order Article Reprints Font Type: Arial Georgia Verdana Font Size: Aa Aa Aa Line Spacing:    Column Width:    Background: Open AccessArticle Research on Welfare Changes of Farmers with Different Livelihood Assets after Rural Residential Land Exit in the Context of “Tripartite Entitlement System”: A Case Study of Fuhong Town in Qingbaijiang District, Chengdu, China by

Buting Hong 1,2,

Ping Ren 1,2,*,

Runtao Huang 1,2,

Jiangtao Xiao 1,2 and

Quanzhi Yuan 1,2 1 Key Laboratory of Land Resources Evaluation and Monitoring in Southwest, Ministry of Education, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610066, China 2 Collaborative Innovation Center for Land Resource Development and Protection, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu 610066, China * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 6034; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076034 Received: 23 February 2023 / Revised: 23 March 2023 / Accepted: 29 March 2023 / Published: 30 March 2023 (This article belongs to the Section Health, Well-Being and Sustainability) Download Download PDF Download PDF with Cover Download XML Download Epub Browse Figures Versions Notes

Abstract: By referring to the sustainable livelihood analysis and capability approach and taking Fuhong town in Qingbaijiang district, China, as an example, this paper classifies the livelihood assets of farm households before their residential land exit using the livelihood asset quantification method, and then analyzes the changes in their welfare after exit from residential land by adopting fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. The research results indicate that (1) the sample farm households are classified into three types, i.e., richness type, balance type, and shortage type, according to the configuration of livelihood assets, including human capital, natural capital, physical capital, financial capital, and social capital, before the exit from residential land; (2) after the exit from the residential land, the welfare of farm households has generally been improved, but the extent of such improvements varies from type to type; (3) there is a certain relationship between the configuration of livelihood assets before the exit from residential land and the welfare level after such an exit. It is suggested that importance should be attached to the heterogeneity or level of differentiation of farm households, and furthermore, measures should be taken so as to ensure that the welfare level will not be downgraded after farm households exit from their residential land. Keywords: rural residential land exit; livelihood assets; tripartite entitlement system; fuzzy comprehensive evaluation; China 1. IntroductionSince the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the country’s residential land system has played a fundamental role in ensuring that farmers have housing to live in, maintaining social stability and harmony, etc., and the system has also been regarded as a critical arrangement influencing the country’s politics and society [1,2]. However, the problems and challenges confronting the existing system of residential land are becoming more and more prominent, alongside urbanization being carried forward and changes in social structure in urban and rural areas. Such problems are mainly reflected in the fact that a lot of residential land is left unused or is used at low efficiency; the asset value of residential land has not been utilized sufficiently, and hidden circulation cannot be stopped despite repeated bans [3,4,5]. The explorative implementation of a voluntary exit from residential land with compensation is an efficient approach to the abovementioned problems [6]. In 2015, China started to carry out pilot reforms in rural land requisition, collective commercial construction land marketing, and the rural residential land system in 33 counties (county-level cities and districts) all over the country. Specifically, the reform of the rural land-requisition system aims to strictly define the scope of land requisitioned for public interest, develop a catalogue of land requisition, standardize the requisition procedures, and provide more appropriate and diverse safeguards for farmers whose land has been requisitioned. Rural collective commercial construction land is the rural collective land in stock specified to be used for industrial, mining, storage, commercial service, and other commercial purposes in overall land-use planning and urban and rural planning. The reform of rural collective commercial construction land marketing aims to improve the property rights system of rural collective commercial construction land, endow it with the functions of transfer, lease, and equity ownership, and establish rules and regulations for the market transactions of collective commercial construction land. The reform of the rural residential land system aims to improve the rights protection and acquisition of residential land, and explore its paid use and voluntary exit with compensation. Especially in the aspect of the reform and perfection of rural residential land system, a great deal of practical exploration has been conducted around the mode and method of voluntary exit from residential land in all these pilot areas, and remarkable effects have been achieved. The “No. 1 Central Document” of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee in 2018, based on the successful experiences of the pilot areas, officially proposed exploration into the “Tripartite Entitlement System” for the reform of the ownership, qualification, and use rights of residential land. In terms of ownership right, the residential land is still owned by the rural collective, and the rural collective economic organization exercises the ownership right on behalf of the collective. This is an inherent requirement for strictly maintaining the principle of public land ownership in China. The qualification right is separated from the use right and becomes an independent right owned by individual farmers who are members of the rural collective. This is the institutional dependence for protecting the interests of farmers and maintaining the harmony and stability of rural society. The right to use rural residential land and houses built on such land can be transferred under certain conditions, which allows the land to be used for agritainment, homestay, rural tourism, and other business forms through independent, cooperative, or entrusted operation in accordance with laws and regulations. It contributes to the efficient use of rural construction land in stock, increasing farmers’ property income, motivating rural development, and promoting the current rural revitalization strategy. This significant innovation in both theory and practice has specified the guidelines for the intensification of the reform of residential land system in recent times, and enriched the meaning of exiting from residential land. Residential land is a special institutional arrangement to protect the basic right of residence of farm households in China. It has the characteristics of allowing only one house per household, free but limited use for an indefinite period, and limited transfer between collective members. Before the implementation of the “Tripartite Entitlement System”, exit from residential land meant completely giving up the right to use the residential land as a rural collective member for lump-sum compensation, and disqualification from reapplying for residential land. The creation of the qualification right allows farmers to choose to temporarily give up the use right while reserving the qualification right, obtaining continuous benefits from the transfer of use right and acquiring the use right again after a certain number of years or when special conditions are met. This not only endows farmers with a self-decision right with respect to exiting from their residential land, but also protects their lawful rights and interest with respect to their exit.China’s dualistic land system and differences in urban and rural household residential registration create an inflexibility in the utilization of rural construction land [7]. With the aim of revitalizing rural construction land in stock and improving the utilization of rural land resources, the Chinese government is actively implementing the pilot program of voluntary exit from residential land with compensation to manifest the asset value of residential land and ensure sufficient land for rural industry revitalization. The community of scholars has conducted a great deal of research into the issues related to exiting from residential land. On a macro level, the research mainly includes the establishment and perfection of the system of exiting from residential land [8,9], the analysis and comparison of exit modes [10,11], the measurement and calculation of compensation for exit, and the distribution of value-added income [12,13]; on a micro level, this research focused on farmers’ willingness to exit and the factors influencing their willingness [14,15], and the change in welfare after their exit [16,17]. The measurement of the welfare of farm households and the changes in their income and loss after exiting from residential land relate to the degree of their satisfaction to the relevant policy, constituting an important measure of the governance capacity and credibility of the government. Moreover, these two factors have an indirect impact upon the willingness and enthusiasm of farmers who take a wait-and-see attitude to exit from residential land, providing practical guidance for improving the standards and plans of compensation for exit, and developing targeted follow-up support policies to avoid a reduction in the welfare of farm households and ensure their sustainable livelihood. Most previous studies focus on establishing an evaluation index system for the welfare of land-lost farm households and comparing their welfare levels before and after land loss. In general, the description of welfare has gone beyond the single dimension of material wealth to include a range of factors, such as income and health [18], residential conditions [19], community environment [20], social security [21], quality of social relations [22], employment opportunities [23], and psychological factors [24]. Moreover, various concepts, such as “happiness”, “satisfaction”, and “comfort”, have been developed [25,26,27]. Relevant empirical studies have shown that land requisition has a negative impact on the health of farmers due to income and psychological effects [28]. Land-requisitioned farmers experienced improved economic and residential conditions, but reduced social security and worse psychological conditions [29]. Farmers become urban residents after selling their land. However, they may not enjoy the same level of welfare as original urban residents [30]. Land-lost farmers must seek off-farm jobs or self-employment, but none of them succeed, which poses a threat to their wellbeing [31]. In rapidly urbanizing parts of India, farmers saw a dramatic increase in employment and rental income, but the majority of land-lost farmers agreed that after the land acquisition or sale, spending on children’s education followed by household items, gadgets, shopping and entertainment activities, and social events increased massively [32]. In urban fringes of Bahir Dar (Ethiopia), land expropriation in the area has led to a shift to off-farm income for land-expropriated farmers, and an increase in their household expenditure on staple foods compared to other expenditure types, including farm inputs [33]. In Mongolia, improved access to public services and labor wages for land-requisitioned farmers was reported [34]. In China, farmers were found to enjoy better welfare after their exit from residential land to live in a centralized manner; household economic status and social security were the main factors affecting their welfare; and their focus of attention was old-age security and housing quality [35]. Clearly, land loss has both positive and negative effects on the welfare of farmers. However, it should be noted that most of the previous studies examined land-lost farm households as a homogeneous whole without considering their differentiated characteristics. There are indeed some studies classifying farm households according to certain variables, such as the proportion of household income (agricultural versus non-agricultural income) and the location of original residence (suburbs versus outer suburbs), to reveal the difference in welfare that might be caused by the differentiation of the land-loss farm households [17,35]. However, such classifications are still too simple to fully describe the characteristics of the households.Based on the above analysis, by referring to the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) developed by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom and the theory of capability approach of Amartya Sen, this paper takes Fuhong town in Qingbaijiang district of Chengdu, China, as an example, classifies the livelihood of farm households before their exit from residential land by adopting the livelihood asset quantification method, and then analyzes the change and difference in welfare of farm households with different types of livelihood assets after their exit from residential land, with a view to providing a reference for promoting the sustainable livelihood of farm households who have exited from residential land, improving their welfare levels, formulating a differentiated policy around compensation for exit, and perfecting the system of exit from residential land with compensation. 2. Research Area and DataFuhong town is located in the south of Qingbaijiang district, Chengdu, China (see Figure 1), and in geographical terms, the town is situated in the middle section of Longquan Mountain and the northeast of Chengdu Plain, which is an important section of the Longquan Mountain-Chain Tourism Corridor. Fuhong town has an area of 39.36 km2, including a cultivated land area of 26.00 km2, accounting for 66.06% of the total area, and a rural residential land area of 4.86 km2, accounting for 12.35% of the total area. This township has nine administrative villages including Minzhu, Jinbu, and Xinghua, within its jurisdiction, totaling 134 villager groups. With a census-registered population of 30,220, including an agricultural population of 28,289, the township is a typical hilly agricultural village and town. Over the recent years, Fuhong town has actively carried out exploration into the restructuring of population and land through the consolidation of collectively-owned construction land and exiting from residential land with compensation, aiming to revitalize the rural land resources. The township introduced non-governmental funds from the Heshengjiayuan company, Qinghe company, etc., successively and invested a total of RMB 1.48 billion in 10 land-consolidation projects, with a total of 810,000 m2 of new-type rural neighborhood. Through these measures, the town realized the trans-administrative-village centralization of residence of farmers from nine villages, with a total of 23,000 residents resettled and the urbanization rate increased from 2% to 81%. Furthermore, through the re-development and use of the collectively-owned construction land, the town introduced 46 business projects, including “My Pastoral”, “Mingguohui”, and “Tianxiao Equestrian Sport Club”, and boosted the development of new rural industries and industrial formats with great efforts, opening up a characteristic way of enhancing in situ urbanization through the comprehensive consolidation of land to achieve city–industry integration.In the period from June to October in 2019, our research team conducted an on-the-spot survey in seven villages in Fuhong township, including Minzhu, Ziku, Xianfeng, Lanchong, Xingfu, Xinghua, and Jinbu. We handed out 320 copies of our questionnaire at random by holding face-to-face interviews, and collected 314 (98%) of them back. Those surveyed were all farm households who lived in centralized neighborhoods after they exited from residential land, and the survey involved basic information on their household, economic condition, housing conditions, social security, community conditions, etc. After processing the data by deleting invalid questionnaire pieces in which there was no key information or there were logical contradictions, we obtained 301 (96% of the total) valid questionnaire copies. 3. Research Framework and MethodsThe research framework constructed for this study consisted of three parts: classification of farm households, measurement of welfare, and change in welfare (see Figure 2). 3.1. Classification of Farm Households Based on SLA FrameworkThe SLA framework developed by DFID consists of the vulnerability context, livelihood assets, transforming structures and processes, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes [36]. Like all frameworks, it is a simplification. The framework dos not attempt to provide an exact representation of reality. It does, however, endeavor to provide a way of thinking about the livelihoods of people. In other words, it attempts to elaborate how the farm households use the favorable policy factors in transforming structures and processes to improve their livelihood assets and adopt better livelihood strategies to achieve expected livelihood outcomes based on their initial livelihood asset endowments in a vulnerability context [37]. In this framework, the livelihood assets come in five main varieties: human capital, natural capital, physical capital, financial capital, and social capital. Due to the differences in the initial livelihood asset endowments of different farm households, they will have different improvements of livelihood assets, as well as different optimal livelihood strategies, after their exit from residential land, which might lead to differences in their welfare changes. To this end, based on the actual conditions of the survey area and in light of previous research findings [38,39,40], a quantitative evaluation index system for livelihood assets (see Table 1) was established to classify the farm households so as to fully describe their differentiated characteristics. The weight of the index for each livelihood asset is determined by the entropy method. The original data are normalized using the positive index formula of the range-normalization method. The total score of livelihood assets is calculated by weighting all the indices. On the basis of the K-means clustering of the total score of the livelihood assets, we classify the surveyed farm households into three types: richness type, balance type, and shortage type. The calculation is as follows:(1)Normalization of the data X i j = x i j − min ( x j ) max ( x j ) − min ( x j ) where Xij is the normalized value of the original data; xij is the variable value of index j for farm household i; max(xj) is the maximum value of index j; min(xj) is the minimum value of index j; i = 1, 2,…, 301; and j = 1, 2,…, 13. (2)Calculation of information entropy p i j = X i j ∑ i = 1 n X i j e j = − 1 ln ( n ) ∑ i = 1 n ( p i j × ln p i j ) where pij is the proportion of the normalized value of index j for farm household i in that index, and ej is the information entropy. (3)Determination of the weight w j = 1 − e j ∑ j = 1 m ( 1 − e j ) where wj is the weight of index j. (4)Total score of livelihood assets s i = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m ( X i j × w j ) where si is the total score of livelihood assets for farm household i. 3.2. Measurement of Welfare Level of Farm Households after Exit from Residential Land Based on the Capability ApproachIn the 1980s–1990s, Amartya Sen put forward the capability approach theory for evaluating individual welfare [41,42]. This theory redefines the concept of welfare by describing individual welfare in terms of what an individual can actually do and who they can become. This theory has two core concepts: functionings and capabilities. Functionings refer to a variety of things and states that an individual believes are worth doing or achieving, such as having a healthy body, having a comfortable residence, maintaining good interpersonal and working relationships, and being able to obtain appropriate leisure and education. If the acquired functionings constitute the welfare of an individual, then capabilities refer to an individual’s real access to welfare and freedom of choice, and are a collection of various possible functioning vectors. Therefore, welfare can be considered the combination of welfare functionings and capabilities, which takes into account not only current welfare, but also potential and possible welfare. According to Sen’s theory and in light of the existing research findings [7,17,35,40], this paper takes into account the actual conditions of the survey area, and investigates the welfare changes of farm households after their exit from residential land in terms of economic conditions, residential conditions, social security, community conditions, psychological feeling, and development opportunity (see Table 2). (1)Economic conditions. Economic conditions are recognized as one of the most important factors influencing welfare [43]. The economic conditions relate to the farmers’ vital interest, constitute the prime factor directly affecting farmers’ living standards, and reflect the welfare level of farmers. In the context of increasingly differentiated livelihood, the livelihood and income sources of farm households become more and more diversified. Farmers no longer live only on land cultivation, and most of them will increase their household income by working as immigrant laborers, holding concurrent jobs, engaging in individual business activities or other work. Therefore, this paper analyzes the change in welfare of farm households by adopting three indices: agricultural income, net income, and living expenditure.(2)Residential conditions. Just as the term implies, residential condition refers to the conditions of the housing of farmers. Housing is not only the sustainer of farmers’ daily life, but also spiritual sustenance for them. After the farm households in the surveyed areas exited from their residential land, local government ensured the residential conditions for farmers by encouraging them to move to new neighborhoods in towns or through centralized resettlement at the original sites. In both of the above circumstances, the residential conditions of the farmers will change: the location of their housing will be shifted from scattered and out-of-the-way villages to towns, and the housing structure from simply constructed brick-wood structures to strong brick and concrete structures; and the residential conditions in new neighborhoods may be superior. Therefore, in this paper, the housing structure, area, and quality and the degree of satisfaction with present housing quality are adopted as the indices for evaluating the farmers’ welfare related to residential condition.(3)Social security. Residential land underwrites social security for farm households, and provides basic living security for them, being their most important production factor. Owing to the duality of the Chinese household registration system, the social security standard for registered rural residents is much lower than that of registered urban residents. After exiting from residential land, it is particularly urgent to establish a systematic and perfect social security system to substitute for the original social security functioning undertaken by the residential land, and such a system involves the issue of whether the basic living demand of farm households is ensured and the difficulty of getting medical service can be solved after they exit from residential land, whether the demand of farmers for old-age provision can be ensured after their exit from residential land, and whether their exit from residential land can bring higher social security, etc. For these reasons, this paper highlights pension insurance, medical insurance, and the degree of satisfaction with social security as the welfare evaluation indices for evaluating social security for farm households.(4)Community conditions. There will always be a thorough change in the residential condition of farm households in the wake of their exit from residential land. The government of Fuhong township has resettled the farm households of out-of-the-way villages in town in a centralized way under the banner of “Living in Neighborhood”, with the in situ urbanization realized. An agreeable community condition is an important vector of attraction encouraging farm households to exit from their residential land. The extent of the perfection of infrastructure, comfort of living, and convenience in working and living in neighborhoods directly determine the living quality of the farmers, and will then affect the degree of satisfaction with the welfare for their exit. Therefore, this paper selects public order situations, sanitary conditions, noise conditions, and entertainment as the indices for evaluating the conditions of neighborhoods where farm households live in a centralized way.(5)Psychological feeling. Psychological feeling is also an important part of the welfare of farm households who have exited from residential land; in terms of changes in welfare of farm households, the change in material conditions must be sufficiently taken into consideration, and in addition, close attention should be paid to the change in their psychological feeling. After farm households exit from their residential land, their lifestyle, life rhythm, and quality change greatly; whether the farmers can adapt to this new life and get along well with new neighbors after the exit and how much they are satisfied with the policy for exit from residential land will directly influence the welfare of those farmers. Therefore, this paper selects neighborhood relations, adaptation to life, and degree of satisfaction with exiting from residential land as the welfare indices for evaluating the psychological feeling of farmers.(6)Development opportunity. Development opportunity is the opportunity that farmers may obtain for employment or starting a business. When farm households exit from their residential land, they give up the opportunities of their self-employed farming job, while centralized residence brings them the convenience of public service and facility as well as the great development opportunities in urban areas, providing them with not only more diversified employment opportunities, but also opportunities for starting business for those who have such intentions. The employment status of farmers before and after their exit from residential land has always been the focus of the research into changes in welfare. Their employment status not only directly affects the economic sources of farmers, but also has an indirect impact on their psychological feeling. Therefore, this paper adopts development expectations and employment opportunities as the welfare indices for evaluating the development opportunities of farm households.As the welfare level is characterized by subjectivity, complexity, and ambiguity, it is feasible to employ fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. The calculation is as follows: (1)Selection of membership function. The welfare status of farmers is represented by a fuzzy set x. The welfare index that may change after exit from residential land is R (see Table 2). Thus, the fuzzy function of the welfare of farm household n is: R n = x , μ R ( x ) where μ R ( x ) is the membership of x to R. It takes a value of between 0 and 1, whereby the larger the value, the higher the welfare. It is generally believed that a membership of 1 indicates the highest welfare, 0 the lowest welfare, and 0.5 a neither-high-nor-low fuzzy state of welfare. It should be noted that this paper is concerned with the changes in welfare, not absolute welfare levels. Therefore, for welfare index quantification, values are assigned according to the relative welfare changes, such as increased a lot/decreased a lot, increased/decreased, and very satisfied/not very satisfied. Therefore, a membership of greater than 0.5 can be considered to indicate an increase in welfare, and a decrease otherwise.Let xi be the functioning subset i of farm household welfare, and xij be the evaluation index j of functioning i, then the primary index of farm household welfare is x = [x11, x12,..., xij]. This paper involves two types of index variables: qualitative dummy variable (Q) and dichotomous dummy variable (D).When the index is a qualitative dummy variable (Q), it is quantified according to the attribute factors of the variable. The membership function is specified as: μ ( x i j ) = 0 0 ≤ x i j ≤ x i j min x i j − x i j min x i j max − x i j min x i j min

【本文地址】

公司简介

联系我们